Dismissed

Birbal Ganjhu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Jun 2022B.A./636/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ranchi rejected the bail application of Birbal Ganjhu, who was in custody since April 2019 for NDPS and related offences. The court held that the earlier bail application was rejected on merits, trials commenced, and witnesses were examined, making enlargement inappropriate. It directed the State to ensure prompt production of remaining witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's prayer for bail is rejected. The State is directed to ensure prompt production of remaining witnesses.

Birbal Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B. A. No. 636 of 2020

¶4

Birbal Ganjhu, aged about 30 years, Son of Sukar Ganjhu, resident of Village Torhad, P.S. Piparwar, District Chartra.

¶5

… … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand. … … Opp. Party

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶9

¶10

08/10.06.2022

¶11

Learned counsel for the parties is present.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.04.2019 in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 65 of 2019 arising out of Tandwa P.S. Case No. 22 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 204 of 2018, for alleged offence registered under Sections 384, 385, 386, 387 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 17 (i) (ii) of the Criminal Law Amendment (C.L.A.) Act, Section 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the U.A.P. Act and Section 20B of the N.D.P.S. Act, said to be pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS), Chatra.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had earlier moved this court for grant of anticipatory bail vide A.B.A. No. 3586/2018, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.09.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner had again moved this Court for grant of regular bail vide B.A. No. 5800/2019, but the same was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2019. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail on account of the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 20.04.2019. He submits that the considering the period of custody of the petitioner, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the case of the petitioner was rejected on merits and there are serious allegations levelled against the petitioner and as per the order passed by the learned court below, which

¶15

¶16

is dated 13.12.2019, three witnesses were already examined. The learned counsel submits that although he is not aware about the present status of the case, but he would inform the concerned authority to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court below. He also submits that the criminal antecedents of the petitioner were also taken into consideration while rejecting the bail application earlier.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation and also the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merit and the trial has already commenced and during trial, three witnesses were examined as back as on 13.12.2019, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.

¶18

However, learned counsel for the opposite party-State is directed to intimate the concerned authority to ensure prompt production of remaining witnesses before the learned court below, so that the trial is concluded at the earliest.

¶19

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘e-mail/FAX’.

¶20

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶21

Mukul/-

Birbal Ganjhu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birbal Ganjhu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Usha Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sudhir Kumar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Water Resources Division

Dinesh Prasad Singh Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization

Arti Devi Vs Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited Represented through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Smt Moti Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Pr Secretary Higher and Technical Education Deptt

Manjhlu Manjhi Alias Manjhlu Hembram Alias Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand